This Jane Austen blog brings Jane Austen, her novels, and the Regency Period alive through food, dress, social customs, and other 19th C. historical details related to this topic.

A 19th Century Regency Era Shower

Copyright (c) Jane Austen’s World. Take a good look at this contraption. Life Magazine gave it the following description:

A treasury of old tubbery, Regency shower 12 feet high was a fancy bathing apparatus in England around 1810, pump lifted water from tank at bottom through pipe to top tank, water could be used over and over again.” – Life Magazine image

Readers familiar with the Regency era know that attitudes towards bathing and hygiene were on the cusp of change. In the early 18th century, a person might wash their face and hands daily, but at the most they would bathe every few weeks or months. Towards the end of the century, cleanliness was no longer regarded as frivolous by a growing number of people. Beau Brummel was a particular proponent of bathing and his affectation for cleanliness became the dandy’s creed. Others began to associate bathing with good health.

Washing made a comeback in the later 18th century. The age of revolution and romanticism valued simplicity and naturalness, and water – in the form of mountain torrents and medicinal springs – became fashionable. Rousseau recommended bathing children in ice-cold water, winter and summer, and a sophisticated clientele sought to relieve its frayed nerves and overtaxed digestions by taking the waters at spas. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who invented the phrase “Cleanliness is next to godliness”, wrote a manual claiming that cold baths had been known to cure blind-ness and leprosy, as well as “hysterick cholik” in ladies. – Review of Clean, An Unsanitized History of Washing

Image from Regency House Party.

The Americans echoed the British attitude towards cleanliness:

Until the last third of the 18th century, bathing practices were not clearly defined or categorized. The perceived effects on the body of the cold and warm bath were debated regularly in prescriptive literature, as were reasons for bathing in the first place. Motives for bathing changed somewhat over time, and different methods had specific connotations: did one bathe for pleasure, as a restorative of good health, for leisure and/or hot weather refreshment, as a luxurious display, or for actual, bodily cleanliness? Whatever the motivation, it was then up to the bather to decide whether she or he adhered to the cold or warm water method. – Bathing, Monticello.org

The pump is evident in this portable bath shower from the mid 19th c.

If a person opted to take a shower, the effect was at first quite bracing, for only cold water was used with this fairly new contraption, invented in 1767)by William Feetham. In the image from Regency House Party, a servant is seen pouring water into the basin, but Feetham’s patented invention included a pump that forced the water to the upper basin and a chain that was pulled by the bather to pour water over himself. The advantage was that less water was used in bathing (A typical bath tub would require from 6-8 buckets of heated water to be carried from the nearest water source and up several flights of stairs). The early shower system’s disadvantage was clear: the same water would be reused during the course of the shower. Not only did one reuse dirty water, but one felt quite cold during the process.

When the temperature of a bed-room ranges below the freezing-point, there is no inducement . . . to waste any unnecessary time in washing,” wrote Charles Francis Adams, grandson of President John Quincy Adams and brother of historian Henry Adams. To Bathe or Not to Bathe

The elaborate bath house at Wimpole Hall, Cambridgeshire, with the shower made by Alexander Boyd of New Bond Street (See their mark below).

Philip Yorke, 3rd Earl of Hardwicke

The bath house at Wimpole Hall was unusual for its day. Around 1792, Sir John Soane designed the plunge pool for the 3rd Earl of Hardwicke. The pool held 2,199 gallons of water that was heated by a boiler below it in the basement.

The 10 – 12 ft tall metal supports, or poles, of these showers were painted to resemble bamboo wood and even offered a shower curtain for privacy. To protect their hair, bathers wore a conical hat made out of oil cloth.

Until plumbing with warm water was introduced inside the bathroom, the use of shower baths remained rare. Towards the middle of the 19th century, attitudes began to change.

Plumbers began to introduce indoor plumbing, and inventors experimented with perfecting showering tools and pumping in hot water. Improvements in showering equipment was continuous, as the patent given to William Feetham (below) in 1822 attests: To William Feetham of Ludgate Hill, in the City of London, Stove grate Maker and Furnishing Iron monger, for his Invention of certain Improvements on Shower Baths, Sealed June 13 1822.

The intention of these improvements is to enable the patient, who is using the bath to regulate the flow of water, and thereby to soften the shower according as inclination or circumstances may require. This object is effected by two contrivances: the first is an adjustable stop, which may be set so as to prevent the cock from turning beyond any certain distance, so as to limit the opening of the water way to any required discharge; the second is a division of the perforated box or strainer into several chambers by two or more circular concentric partitions, by which limited quantities of water let out from the cistern above are necessarily confined to limited portions of the surface of the strainer … Read more about the patent in The London Journal of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 5, Sherwood, Neely, and Jones, 1823, p284-6.

Feetham's Shower Bath, 1822

The Patentee states: “I do not claim, or intend hereby to claim, as my invention any of the parts which may be already in use, but I do claim the means of regulating the flow of the water from the cock of a shower bath, and also the method of extending, or contracting within central limits, the shower of water at pleasure.”

In December, 1822, Mr. Feetham was granted the patent for the following improvements:

Shower bath patent #4680 granted December 13, 1822

By the 1870’s, even middle class houses began to have hot water pumped in, for the increased rents the landlords were able to command for houses with hot water made it worthwhile for them to invest in plumbing. Sponge baths were still recommended for “invigorating the system,” and as late as 1875 The Ladies Everyday Book cautioned that it was a great mistake to make a bath a regular event.

Godey’s Ladys Book, a popular ladies magazine in the U.S., reflected the changes in attitude towards bathing (as does John Leech’s 1851 cartoon):

Godey’s, June 1855:
The shower -bath has the merit of being attainable by most persons, at any rate when at home, and is now made in various portable shapes. The shock communicated by it is not always safe; but it is powerful in its action, and the first disagreeable sensation after pulling the fatal string is succeeded by a delicious feeling of renewed health and vitality. The dose of water is generally made too large; and, by diminishing this, and wearing one of the high-peaked or extinguisher caps now in use, to break the fall of the descending torrent upon the head, the terrors of the shower-bath may be abated, while the beneficial effects are retained.

Godey’s, March 1858:
The Shower Bath, whether of fresh or salt water, whether quite cold or tepid, is a valuable agent in the treatment of many nervous affections; it will suit some whom the general bath will not. It is well for persons of weak habit, or who suffer from the head, to have a thin layer of warm water put in the bottom of the shower bath before getting in. Useful hand shower baths are now manufactured for children.

Domestic Sanitary Regulation, John Leech 1851. In this scene, the shower is installed in the kitchen. The children are wearing the conical caps to protect their hair as they wait their turn wearing blankets, jackets or robes.

21 Responses

Thank you for the article. I really like to think of my Regency men, Wentworth and Darcy, as being proponents of frequent bathing, esp. since I am Anne Elliot and Elizabeth Bennet in my imagination. :)

Mary, He may have well followed Beau Brummel’s example and kept himself scrupulously clean. He certainly had the means and the servants! I loved the quote that I read recently: “If everyone smells, no one smells.”

Good call, Mary! I agree with you wholeheartedly. Don’t you think that’s one reason they made a point to show Darcy bathing, Jane with her hair wet, drying it, Darcy swimming… :) We want to think that Mr. Darcy would’ve smelled as nice as Colin Firth must. :D

I do wonder about the teeth, though. Oh, brush the teeth!! Listerine!! Maybe all the alcohol they drank helped with that.

A fascinating post, Vic, enlightening me on a subject about which I was entirely ignorant (as so many of your posts do). I am left wondering about who have adopted these contraptions during the Regency period, as I have read countless descriptions of Brummell’s daily bathing habits, but have never heard mention of his showering. Could the shower bath perhaps have been deemed inappropriate for his syphilitic skin conditions? Or was it considered unfashionable to adopt such labor saving devices, as they did not require the pomp of inconveniencing a medley of servants? As a person who delights in cold showers myself (particularly in the summer), and a true believer in the “delicious feeling of renewed health and vitality” that follows the “first disagreeable sensation”, I think I would have relished such a device, even if it did require reusing dirty water.

Alexa, I have not read that Beau Brummel owned one of these showers. This didn’t mean that he never tried one. Information about these showers is scant and I am still looking for a source that goes into more detail about them (it probably sits in a library in England! :)

I do know that the Beau lived in rooms in Mayfair, and he may not have had the choice (or requisite room height) to place one in his lodging.

Accounts from that day suggest that people were all over the place when it came to the temperature of their water. Obviously, if you had the luxury of employing several servants, they could haul water from the pump or stream, heat it, and bring it to your wash stand. No matter how rich you were, the laborious process limited the number of times a person could bathe in a tub.

This makes me suspect that the Beau bathed from a wash stand and used cold water. For many, the “health” benefits of a bracing cold bath outweighed the comfort of using warm water.

I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I too had never really known when the use of showers came to be. When you told of how people used to have strange bathing habits, it wasn’t so long ago that odd notions about such things persisted. For example, my mother, who is now 88 years old, would have her “monthly” she refused to bathe. She had read somewhere long ago that it was somehow bad for you to do so during this time. She “warned” me when my “time” came to do the same. I just thought the whole thing was hilarious!

I agree. As recently as the early 20th century, women brushed their hair for at least 10 minutes morning and night to distribute the oils evenly, for they washed their hair, regardless of the need, only rarely.

Indoor plumbing is still not universal all over the world, and there are entire societies that still follow the bathing habits of our forefathers.

This is fascinating. I didn’t think there was a shower that resembles our ones, invented so early. People really seem strange in the old days. bathing for pleasure, to show off? I’m just, lol.=)

Its actually so interesting, I wonder if it is just, growing up in a society with a perspective of bathing everyday, surely those people long ago, had instinctively known water washes off the dirt, surely they realised how clean they felt? I mean, surely they did not need a Romantic period to change it all? I better look up human pscyhology through the ages.=)

Liana, for at least two centuries, and there is no way to get around this, Europeans stank. Water was not associated with cleanliness but with disease. (And who could blame them, for drinking unboiled water from contaminated wells WAS associated with disease.)

So people wore strong perfume to stave off the smells from others. (If you read the articles associated with the links embedded in my post, they go into greater detail.)

So it makes sense that the populace would feel adverse bathing. Having said that, in many cultures it is felt that Americans are just a little too addicted to keeping clean, and that one does not have to shower every day as a matter of course.

Most people washed their hands and faces daily. Some had no more than one or two baths in their lifetime, even as late as the Regency period. Most had one or two baths per month.

Sea bathing and communal bathing in spas were for medicinal purposes, not for the joy of cleansing.

I watched “Regency House Party” and as I recall, the ladies showered with a gown on!? Like the women at Bath, IN THE BATH, in the first “Northanger Abbey” movie. How they got clean is beyond me. Does anyone else remember that? Fascinating post and pictures, Vic, thank you.

Cathy, as late as the mid-1960’s a certain Catholic college (which shall go nameless) required that their female students wear a white linen gown while sitting in the tub, just in case someone approached them unawares. I kid you not.

In the communal hot tubs in Bath, men and women entered the hot baths together, and they were made to wear gowns.

Ok I never would have guessed that’s what a shower would have looked like but I guess it makes sense! Also I find it interesting that the Brits came up with it first since they don’t really like showers (or at least didn’t until recently). I thought it was more of an American thing.

The British Isles reigned supreme at this time when it came to inventing new equipment and machinery during the Industrial Revolution. Mr. Feetham, of whom we know very little, was a stove grate maker and furnishing iron monger by trade. He tinkered with and perfected his shower for at least another 30 years, so to him bathing and cleansing were important goals.

The English were simply following the Western European concept of cleanliness. All Europeans were described by other cultures they encountered or conquered (Japanese, Chinese, American and South American Indians, etc) as being a group of filthy and stinking people.

This is fascinating! I remember that “Regency House Party” moment — mostly for the “ah hah!” light bulb that went on over my head when I realised there were showers in use at the time (other than the ones in Bath).

And I agree with Mary, Martha and Liana … I too always liked to think of Darcy and the rest as frequent bathers. I’m not as well read on Jane’s life as I should be — does she ever express opinions about bathing elsewhere or do we, as Martha pointed out, draw conclusions strictly from her novels?

[…] If I lived in Georgian times, would I be so averse to new technology? Perhaps my cook would resist using one of the new closed stoves, but I can’t imagine that I would resist advances in personal hygiene, like the invention of the shower. Even though it did recirculate the same water… Here’s a cool article from Jane Austen’s World on Regency showers. […]

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,991 other followers

Search for:

Notice: Comments

Due to SPAMMERS, I will no longer accept comments on posts that I published over 30 days ago. In some instances, I will remove links from comments as well.

This blog has no commercial purpose

Join Me on Twitter

Join me on Facebook

Hello, my name is Vic and I live in Richmond, VA. I work in program and professional development at Virginia Commonwealth University, and I have adored Jane Austen almost all of my life. I am a proud lifetime member of the Jane Austen Society of North America. This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. I do not accept any form of cash advertising, sponsorship, or paid topic insertions. However, I do accept and keep books, DVDs and CDs to review.

Contributors to this blog include: Tony Grant and Rachel Dodge.

If you would like to share a new site, or point out an error, please email me. (Yes, I am fallible. I'll own up to my mistakes and will make the corrections with a polite smile on my face.) Write me at